User talk:Factsonlyplease39

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

please can someone direct me to a page where I can easily access a list of categories? Thank you.

Try Category:Contents. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factsonlyplease39! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah,

I am new to Wikipedia( on the back end). I was wondering if you would be interested in helping me with a company page. It was originally deleted by moderators years ago for spam I think, anyways, it would be a sizeable submission that could have your name on it. I am helping Primacy ( go to Real Canadian Superstore and redded out is Primacy) get an informational page up. I have several reliable sources like Reuters, MSN, Bloomberg, Yahoo, community newspapers etc.

Please let me know is this interests you.

R Boag

RobertBoag (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can try - I dont know how much time I will have. Pretty busy these days. Send me the sorces and the content you are thinking to upload and I will see what I can do Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! As you might know, I recently created the Wikipedia article for Chip Smith via Articles for Creation and I've been keeping an eye on the page while sorting out an image.

I just saw that you had uploaded an image to Commons and added this to the article, however, I too have uploaded the same image (although cropped to remove some excess space at the top) and have been working with The Glover Park Group to follow through the process to get the image rights confirmed. Since the OTRS request has been made (specifically linking to the image that I uploaded), I'd like to ask two things:

1. Please can you request deletion of the file you uploaded?
2. Can you add the version I uploaded to Commons to Chip's article in place of your upload from today?

Hope this all makes sense, it's not a situation I've come across before but I think that deleting the image you uploaded today will be the simplest path. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will try to do this. Happy I can help. Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Happily OTRS has just marked the version I uploaded as having received permission to release under the CC-BY-3.0 license, so it's good to go if you're able to add it into the article. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. I have replaced the image and started the process of deletion for the image I uploaded.Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:30, Saturday, June 29, 2024 (

)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hello, I'm Dl2000. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Alex Cartana, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alex Cartana, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

]

Hello, Factsonlyplease39,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Great Wall of Lucy Wu should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Wall of Lucy Wu .

If you're new to the process,

. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, scope_creep 14:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just kind of wanted to give you a head's up on stuff. I wanted to warn you against using merchant sources on Wikipedia. Merchant sources such as Amazon and Barnes & Nobles is considered to be inappropriate and they are almost never usable as a reliable source. The only time I've seen them as usable is when someone is quoting a review or interview done by the site (as opposed to general reviews) and even then, they're viewed as suspect since the stand to gain financially from people purchasing via the review/interview. We usually list those in the external links section if it's a particularly interesting interview. Goodreads is pretty much considered to be unusable as a reliable source because it can be edited by almost anyone. You do have to request to be a librarian, but it isn't exactly overwhelmingly difficult to achieve. Because of this, Goodreads is considered to be a link that should never be used as a reliable source and in general, doesn't really belong on Wikipedia even in the external links section.

Now as far as articles such as One: A Novel, there's a few other things to mention. First off, you should link to the review site rather than just quote the site. (IE, to the review itself.) The thing here is to verify that the site did review the work in question but also so we can verify that the site is usable as a reliable source. The sites you listed would be usable as reliable sources, but you've got to be careful because some places will seem legit but actually just be a blog or otherwise unusable source. Also, please don't list the author's other works on the article. Also, we don't list the author's other works in an article about a singular work. What I'd recommend is that you make a template like say, Template:The Dark Tower, and list the works there. We generally only list another work if there's maybe one specific other work in question (as in the person in question only has 1-2 works) and there's no reason to make a template. Also, when writing a reception section, we try to avoid bullet points with reviews because we've had people complain that it looks promotional. I've also tried to make them flow in a bit of a paragraph, as taking big quotes can come across as promotional as well. I'll do maybe one big quote, but otherwise I try to take small phrases from the review and write an original sentence.

Otherwise, it's good to see people making book articles. I just wanted to give you sort of a head's up because I noticed that another article was up for deletion. You made a few other articles and I'd just like to kind of caution you on them because while offhand they do seem to have notability once you start looking for sources, they do require some cleanup and not everyone is going to do that before nominating it for deletion, as you've seen with the article

]

A tag has been placed on Gregory L. Henslee, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See
  Wikipedia:FAQ/Business
  for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See
  section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable
  .

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

]

December 2014

Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice work!

		The Original Barnstar
		Geez, the template monsters have been picking on you since Day One, haven't they? That's not very nice. Well, I'm gonna be nice — excellent work on Karen Blessen. Thanks for hanging in there and getting through the tough part of the learning curve... Your very first barnstar! Keep up the good work!!! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

talk) 19:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of The 8-Week Cholesterol Cure for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The 8-Week Cholesterol Cure is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 8-Week Cholesterol Cure until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

talk) 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]